Contraception

[cubinity]

Ah, you mean 'what is the biblical basis'? I don't think that's really a hole in the 'contraception does not necessarily mean every means of birth control' argument since that argument in itself does not take a moral stance, but I could see how you find it crucial to determining whether or not different means of birth control are objectively moral.

I do not practice Sola Scriptura or believe it to be a sound practice at all, so I am not concerned with any biblical basis -- while I do agree that doctrine must not conflict with Scripture, I do not believe that any given thing is necessarily false for its lack of explicit presence in Scripture. That being said, I do not believe that every given thing that has no conflict with Scripture is true, and I only add this glaringly obvious stance of mine to protect myself from strawmen arguments.

Admitting that I don't know what a strawmen argument is, I do appreciate your sentiment. I also appreciate you not being Sola Scriptura.

However, as an American, I have a hard time not linking things back to a single governing document. I suppose for you the Catechisms are in themselves sufficiently such a document. But, I am a Protestant, and therefore, while not being Sola Scriptura, still feel compelled to run any Christian morality past the Scripture for review.

Regardless, I am curious what, exactly, about contraceptives make them objectively immoral. If birth control is justified, then the end result of contraception is obviously not the problem. So, it must be the means.

If the means themselves are immoral, I am curious why they are immoral? Especially if they are supposedly objectively immoral. In other words, if I were to say they were subjectively immoral, I could simply appeal to my constitution/Catechism/sacred text. But, to argue that they are objectively immoral takes a bit of explaining, I suppose.

Let's start with a category of birth control that made the "contraceptive" list, and two that did not.

Blockades like condoms and diaphragms contrasted against Onan's method: why is one moral and the other not? In Onan's method, proximity works as it's own blockade, so why does it make a moral difference when the blockade is latex or spacial?

Blockades like condoms and diaphragms contrasted against sex during infertile periods of time. Biologically, we know that a woman's egg exists from before she is born, so the egg is present even during infertile times. Thus, in this case, the woman's body itself is acting as a blockade against fertilization. So, what makes the moral difference between a flesh blockade and a latex one?

Serious reminder: I'm genuinely asking in order to better flush out your argument. None of my questions are loaded. I am genuinely interested in your answers.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I am still waiting for citations from the Apostles and ECFs in support of NFP.

 

[ivebeenshown]

I am still waiting for citations from the Apostles and ECFs in support of NFP.

Jack posted one...

 

[sunlover1]

I am still waiting for citations from the Apostles and ECFs in support of NFP.

All i came up with was late 4th century Augustine..


Possibly the earliest Christian writing about periodic abstinence was by St. Augustine. In the year 388, he wrote, "Is it not you who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time...?"[1] The Manichaeans (the group the early church father St. Augustine wrote of) believed that it was immoral to create any children, thus (by their belief system), trapping souls in mortal bodies. Augustine condemned them for their use of periodic abstinence: "From this it follows that you consider marriage is not to procreate children, but to satiate lust."[1]


.

 

[Bethanyb5243]

The desicion was much different 1,000 years ago

 

[patricius79]

I am still waiting for citations from the Apostles and ECFs in support of NFP.

where are such statements in support of contraception? (there may be such explicit statements in favor of NFP but I'm not aware of them)

or how is that a fair requirement when it is not in Scripture nor does anyone in the first millenium roughly share the modern Protestant distinctive oral traditions?

I think this would be an issue of the development of doctrine

the Apostles and ECFs testify abundantly to the authority of the historic Trinitarian Church, the Catholic Church, to settle such issues; and to the evil of contraception.

obviously they knew that having sex during the infertile period and not having sex during the fertile period are not intrinsically wrong acts. and that there are serious, loving reasons for avoiding pregnancy

Lactantius:

"Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20 [A.D. 307]).
Contraception and Sterilization

 

[ivebeenshown]

All i came up with was late 4th century Augustine..

Possibly the earliest Christian writing about periodic abstinence was by St. Augustine. In the year 388, he wrote, "Is it not you who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time...?"[1] The Manichaeans (the group the early church father St. Augustine wrote of) believed that it was immoral to create any children, thus (by their belief system), trapping souls in mortal bodies. Augustine condemned them for their use of periodic abstinence: "From this it follows that you consider marriage is not to procreate children, but to satiate lust."[1]

He condemned their use of periodic continence, not periodic continence in itself. Periodic continence can be abused. Read the bolded portion:

2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:

Spacing the births of children so that you can ensure a stable environment for your children is generous -- having a mindset that is closed off to birth altogether is selfish. If you're using NFP just for the purpose of having sex without ever having children, yeah, that's probably selfish of you. If you're using NFP to experience intimacy until you aren't dead broke so that when you do have a child you can provide for it, that's very generous IMO.

 

[sunlover1]

He condemned their use of periodic continence, not periodic continence in itself. Periodic continence can be abused.

Truly it matters not what he said period.
I don't make my decisions based another man's beliefs.
Augustine was sharing his 'opinion'...

Blockades like condoms and diaphragms contrasted against Onan's method: why is one moral and the other not? In Onan's method, proximity works as it's own blockade, so why does it make a moral difference when the blockade is latex or spacial?

Been asking this too.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Truly it matters not what he said period.
I don't make my decisions based another man's beliefs.
Augustine was sharing his 'opinion'...

If what other people say doesn't even matter, why are you even posting on this board?

Been asking this too.

I believe that coitus interruptus and condoms are both objectively immoral, because they are both a 'blockade' (to use cubinity's terms) which disrupts the natural process of intercourse.

 

[cubinity]

If what other people say doesn't even matter, why are you even posting on this board?

I believe that coitus interruptus and condoms are both objectively immoral, because they are both a 'blockade' (to use cubinity's terms) which disrupts the natural process of intercourse.

What is "the natural process of intercourse?"

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The desicion was much different 1,000 years ago

Yep, contraceptive drugs were not as well understood or as good.

 

[ivebeenshown]

What is "the natural process of intercourse?"

I can't get too graphic here. Simply put, NFP is the only means of birth control I know of that doesn't alter God's design. He designed man's seed to go to one place and one place only, and you know the place I am talking about. He didn't design pills and shots to alter woman's fertility, or pills and devices to abort a conception that already happened. He didn't design ovarian tubes to be blockaded or man's jewels to be removed or 'disconnected'.

He did design woman with a cycle.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Been asking this too.

It has been answered more than once.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

What is "the natural process of intercourse?"

As God designed it. Human procreation 101.

 

[cubinity]

I can't get too graphic here. Simply put, NFP is the only means of birth control I know of that doesn't alter God's design. He designed man's seed to go to one place and one place only, and you know the place I am talking about. He didn't design pills and shots to alter woman's fertility, or pills and devices to abort a conception that already happened. He didn't design ovarian tubes to be blockaded or man's jewels to be removed or 'disconnected'.

He did design woman with a cycle.

Are you also against fertility therapy for the same reason?

I don't mean it as a red herring, or straw man, or anything like that. I'm honestly curious how far your commitment to God's design goes in terms of fertilizing eggs. I ask because based on your insistence here that something related to fertility is objectively immoral if it imposes a human method upon the way God designed procreation, and that the only right way is the natural way, I would naturally make the assumption that you apply that reasoning in both directions: toward and away from pregnancy.

As a non-Catholic, I am also unfamiliar with the RCC's stance on the subject, and am genuinely interested to know if they condemn fertilization therapy and artificial insemination on the same basis; that it is not how God designed it.

 

[cubinity]

As God designed it. Human procreation 101.

Forgive me, but this response doesn't entirely make sense to me.

The question was about the natural process of intercourse.
You have referred to Human procreation.
Are these two ideas synonymous to you?
Do you believe the only morally right reason to have intercourse is to intend to procreate?
That does not sound like the kind of only moral reason that would lead one to say that intentionally having sex in the off-season is morally justifiable.

However, I still have to ask because of my background: What do you consider the natural process of intercourse? Does that refer to the physical positioning in which it is enacted? Does it limit the stimulation aids one can use? Does it dictate what you do with your other limbs and orifices? I'm just curious what exactly constitutes the "natural process of intercourse" to you.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Are you also against fertility therapy for the same reason?

I don't mean it as a red herring, or straw man, or anything like that. I'm honestly curious how far your commitment to God's design goes in terms of fertilizing eggs. I ask because based on your insistence here that something related to fertility is objectively immoral if it imposes a human method upon the way God designed procreation, and that the only right way is the natural way, I would naturally make the assumption that you apply that reasoning in both directions: toward and away from pregnancy.

As a non-Catholic, I am also unfamiliar with the RCC's stance on the subject, and am genuinely interested to know if they condemn fertilization therapy and artificial insemination on the same basis; that it is not how God designed it.

Regarding surrogacy and artifical insemination/in vitro:

2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses' "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."167

2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children."168 "Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."169

What do you mean by 'fertility therapy'?

However, I still have to ask because of my background: What do you consider the natural process of intercourse? Does that refer to the physical positioning in which it is enacted? Does it limit the stimulation aids one can use? Does it dictate what you do with your other limbs and orifices? I'm just curious what exactly constitutes the "natural process of intercourse" to you.

Well when I first said disruption of 'the natural process of intercourse' I was meaning disruption of 'the genitive process'. That is, the preventing the seed from leaving the man and entering the woman, or thwarting the man's potency or the woman's fertility, or aborting when the woman has conceived.

 

[cubinity]

Regarding surrogacy and artifical insemination/in vitro:

2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses' "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."167

2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children."168 "Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."169

What do you mean by 'fertility therapy'?

Cool. Thanks for this response. It is insightful.
What about drugs that boost fertility, but still require an act by which two persons give themselves to one another? That respect the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being and make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person? Are those moral or immoral? I couldn't tell from this if it excluded or included those.

 

[sunlover1]

If what other people say doesn't even matter, why are you even posting on this board?

Makes no sense.
What does the fact that I don't base my decisions on other men's beliefs
have to do with me enjoying discussion?

I believe that coitus interruptus and condoms are both objectively immoral, because they are both a 'blockade' (to use cubinity's terms) which disrupts the natural process of intercourse.

Why's that?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

As God designed it. Human procreation 101.

Natural: Sex happens with both mutually agree.


Human Procreation 101? Please show me (reference the biological and/or anthropological studies) that reveals that what humans naturally do - and seem to have always done - is to determine the fertile and infertile times of the woman, mark those days on the calendar, schedule "more sex than otherwise" but employ a birth control method so as to have sex but contraceptively? I'd like to see the biological and/or anthropological studies to confirm that THAT is what is "natural" and is a given from anyone's awareness of "Human Procreation 101."


Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.